|
|
Dick Van Belzen
 The Company knows all. Since customers really don’t know what’s possible, let’s have the R&D team push the envelope with new and derivative concepts and products, and then have marketing and sales convince the customer of what they really need.
Success doesn’t always breed success. Feeling a false sense of security in knowing exactly what customers want and need happens most frequently with companies that have had a major new product success. They become too surefooted and less market vigilant, so they seek to shortcut the process by developing solutions without much (if any) market validation. This is especially true in developing a new generation of products or what I refer to as derivative products. The thought is, “We knew what the customer wanted in Generation X so why not add to it and update for Generation Y?” Mistake!
Guessing at what the customer needs is problematic on a number of fronts:
- Adding capabilities to the product invariably means a higher Average Selling Price (ASP) that customers may not be willing to pay. The company is later forced to cut price and compromise margins to get sales (I’ve had a lot of input on this from CFOs).
- It makes too many assumptions and doesn’t take a fresh look at what customers may need (yes I know, “Customers don’t always know what they want,” so it needs to be teased out through careful – but not necessarily costly – research)
- There is an underlying assumption that because the sales channels have figured out the current product, they can certainly find success with the new version. So when the channels have a hard time selling new versions, they are often blamed for being resistant or not working hard enough. This causes ill will and tension between sales, marketing, and product development.
We don’t need to go much farther today than RIM’s Blackberry, which was once the darling of business cell phone PDA users. Now RIM has had more than a few product design missteps and is left with a future that is cloudy. As RIM continued to do what they always did well, competition raised the bar. Now the Blackberry is struggling to catch up and could well be left behind. One company who has had much success is Apple, and while Steve Jobs doesn’t openly admit to doing much research, the company does in fact study consumer’s usage needs, in high detail.
Folks in R&D can become lethal in developing products if they are presented with key issues and problems that are being faced in the use of various devices or any other products. I’ve found that if R&D is left with the mantra “Create baby, Create!” they will, but are then left to think only in terms of technical specifications and not in terms of customer needs. I’ve learned over the years that R&D folks work quietly but are intent on helping make a difference for their company. They would rather be working on something that has a chance of being a homerun than taking lots of swings and striking out.
My suggestion is that R&D should carve out 10% of their budget to invest in effective Voice of the Customer research. This investment, if applied properly, will have a multiplier effect on products and solutions that truly connect with the market. If companies think that marketing should do this, even if they do, the investment will come too late – after the product has been baked. Besides, marketing isn’t given a budget that comes remotely close to what R&D has to invest.
Dick Van Belzen
 Trade shows are usually great events to present your offerings and to stay up to date on your market. Each day of a show there are many opportunities to visit with customers in sales and public relations roles. A lot of competitive intelligence and market insights can be gained from walking the show and talking to exhibitors and visitors.
Can effective Voice of the Customer (VOC ) be gathered at a trade show? By all means, the answer is yes. But VOC collection needs to be planned, and needs to follow the basic rules for the research method that you’ll employ at the trade show. Often this isn’t the case, and we hear examples of company representatives who list “participating in a trade show” as VOC, so they can check the box. As with our other VOC train wrecks, with trade shows we need to be watchful of what we are really doing, and not kidding ourselves that we’re collecting projectable information – unless we are following a protocol.
Hopefully by this fourth installment in the series on VOC, you’re seeing a pattern of behavior that should make you take warning. The goal of this series is not to deter you from reaching out to customers, but rather to be sure you don’t confuse customer contact activities with VOC. If you do, you’re likely to collect information that isn’t representative of the market and customer needs. So when the Doblin group did a study of innovation – particularly on the success of new products or services – they found a hit rate of only 4%. This is a pathetic statistic, especially for large companies that make large investments in R&D and have built substantial processes to commercialize their goods and services .
So why are leaders willing to spend millions and billions in innovation, yet almost nothing in VOC? Plain and simple, this is penny wise and pound foolish. Let’s position trade shows as ways to introduce, sell, and promote our products, and gain some level of competitive intelligence, but not conduct meaningful VOC.
Dick Van Belzen
 Customer engagement by senior team members in a sales development support role is invariably helpful. It conveys a top level commitment to customers by meeting customers on their own ground. Often, long term relationships are fostered by these visits, and they help to accelerate the sales cycle.
While customer visits are positive, just visiting does not constitute gathering Voice Of The Customer (VOC). Nonetheless, all too often company leaders seek to interject what they heard into the product development process, and over-steer the offering array of products, services, and features. While leaders usually get an earful from customers of what could be done to enhance the product, it’s dangerous to take the direct leap to implementation based on a few data points.
All too often, leaders relate their key takeaways from the customer visit through their own biases, processing and filtering the “lessons learned” through their own experience and emotional involvement with major product-to-market initiatives. While executive experience is valuable, it can distort the real needs of the marketplace, miss key points, or even worse selectively repeat only the parts that reinforce or justify existing plans – despite inherent flaws in those plans that unfiltered, unbiased VOC would expose.
Real VOC means collecting customer data in way that follows fundamental market research guidelines. The approach to VOC and the means of collection will vary based on the objective and needs of the research initiative. Most B2B companies underspend on VOC because it brings with it the stigma of market research, which I grant you hasn’t always delivered the value that’s been promised and needed. If applied effectively, VOC should be a lynchpin for successful decision making, and in turn, better results.
I raise this issue because stories are legendary of senior executives changing course on a product offering based on a few customer visits. So, I say, let’s not confuse customer relationship building with true VOC. If only leaders would self-check on this behavior, and be sensitive to the damage they can cause.
Dick Van Belzen
 A favorite way to gain Voice of the Customer (VOC) for new and derivative products is to have engineers visit key customers. Let me be clear up front: I’m not knocking the need to interact with customers in their environment and learn from them, and it’s helpful for those developing solutions to better understand and connect with end users. My issue is that many B2B companies rely too heavily on a few interactions between engineers and customers, and they use this narrow input to justify products, to determine key product-related attributes, and to gauge overall market acceptance. Here’s why this is really dangerous:
- Putting the cart ahead of the horse. Often the understanding of customer environment and needs analysis isn’t actually performed by product engineers. Instead, the discussion between the customer and the product engineer leaps headlong into a review of the solution and how it will benefit the customer – in other words, not gathering information, but selling a preconceived idea.
- Biased data collection. Because product engineers are not trained in proper data collection protocols, bias is introduced by the engineer – in terms of what is asked, how it is asked, and what data are actually recorded – compared to other sampling methods delivered by professional researchers.
- Lack of listening and objectivity. How objective do you think the engineer is going to be to alternative viewpoints from the customer? How effective will a product engineer be in relaying dissenting views to the internal product team?
- Over-generalizing narrow input to a broad market. Rarely is a product designed just for one customer. So, how are the products attributes based on these engineering field trips and a sampling of a few interactions going to be received by a broader market?
- Over-attention to Technical features. Getting the technical viability right is only a part of the solution set in making the product easy to buy. Technical feasibility is often straightforward compared to commercial viability.
Engineers acting in the name of collecting Voice of the Customer are almost always well-intended, but beware of the limitations. We regularly see technology companies using these engineer field trips as the centerpiece of VOC for finalizing the solution set. I have a client that has been developing a new product platform since 2001, and has had many changes and reversals in the development and needs delivery process. It’s no wonder why: they’ve never actually talked to customers to reconcile the gap between their lack of market success and the technical roadmap. So a product that was due out in 2004 as an update to a 10 year old platform still hasn’t been commercialized. They have invested about 120 engineering person years since the project started. Besides the lost time, there is their on-going lack of a presence in the market, and huge revenue shortfalls because they are continuing to sell a tired-old product platform that doesn’t compete. The opportunity cost in this case is in the hundreds of millions of dollars, which is staggering.
So why haven’t they invested in effective market research? Because they see themselves as technology leaders who can effectively impute customer needs. While we’ve enjoyed a great relationship with this client in many other areas of their business, it’s been difficult to get this headstrong organization to see the value in effective voice of the customer. Do you think for one minute that Apple and 3M would make these kinds of colossal mistakes? Is your organization so inwardly-focused that you can’t step back and see the logic of using better alternative ways to generate results?
Another lesson learned here is that, in organizations in which Product Management resides in R&D, product features and functions may be locked-in before Marketing can influence them. To avoid this, I recommend that the Product Development organization has a line item in their budget for gathering effective Voice of the Customer for new product introductions using third-party researchers. While the budget often resides in Marketing, Marketing-led VOC may be too late as most of the solution set may be baked before Marketing gets involved.
Dick Van Belzen
 This is the first in a series of ten posts that explore my deep concerns about the effective application of Voice of Customer (VOC) research. The phrase “VOC” has been bandied about for a number of years now. VOC is considered essential as customer views change; it’s important to factor-in issues that customers face in areas we can provide solutions. As leaders navigate in this “new normal” era of slow to weak growth, we’re learning that our B2B value propositions are resonating differently, from somewhat differently to drastically different. My use of “Train Wrecks” to describe how VOC is being applied isn’t tame language at all, and you might wonder why – it’s because we’ve observed a number of Worst Practices in this area, and a variety of companies seem to make the same mistakes over again. During the series I’ll make a number of key points about how VOC methods being routinely misapplied by so many companies today, and why these common sense approaches are so ineffective. Note that most of this thought applies to B2B; in B2C we’re seeing much better discipline and better practices., especially in getting direct VOC.
True VOC is the careful aggregation of objective information, without interviewer or survey bias ,that helps us better understand what groups of customers need. The techniques deployed can range from the simple and low cost to the very complex and costly. We will list and discuss these in a later post. The focus here is to briefly describe what many B2B companies are doing to hear the “Voice of the Customer” but why they are, in fact, not.
One of the root causes in VOC train wrecks is not taking the time and making the right investment in collecting VOC. I contend that many B2B companies see VOC as an expense and not an investment. In B2B there tends to be an over-reliance on the sales force and channels to drive the final mile of marketing – getting the value propositions and positioning right – when in fact the product and offering process should be well tested and developed before putting it into the hands of the channel. Effective VOC can help marketing fully bake an offering, so there are no surprises during initial channel engagement. Testing messaging, positioning, value propositions, and pricing as part of a pre-launch marketing program will reveal how the offerings will be received.
We do see this best practice in B2C. Leading consumer products companies like P&G know before launch whether the product is accepted and the messaging resonates. In the B2B world, Northpoint uses a simulated sales call process to help determine how the product or service will be received before it goes to market.
I know of companies that spent $20 million to develop and launch a product, and spent nothing on effective VOC. In several cases I know, the product had to be re-launched – still with no real VOC – so the value proposition is weak or the pricing is wrong or the positioning is off – and they sacrifice price / margins to get at least some sales. So, why, we ask, do leaders ignore effective VOC when there is such a high price to pay?
With this background, we’ll explore 10 VOC Train Wrecks over the coming weeks. Here’s the first:
VOC Train Wreck #1: Taking input from the sales force and channels. Having dialogs with your market access points, such as channels, is critical in order to support them. The channels are able to express what they see and need on a variety of points. They can tell you about what customers want, what competitors are doing , and other sales enablers and barriers.
Channel input provides a lot of spin -first from customers to your sales people, and then additional spin for each layer the message is relayed within the company. So you might get some kernels of value, but rarely will this happen when developing products and new programs. The ingredients that are missing are objectivity, projection to a broader base of customers (you get a disproportionate amount of input from highly vocal customers – “squeaky wheels”), and getting at unmet needs and unexpressed problems in the customer’s business.
So it’s wise to not over-value the VOC inputs from your channels, and to find ways to effectively apply various VOC tools to get a direct input from customers. As we know ,customers won’t necessarily help us design products, but there are ways to get at what’s holding them back.
This is only the first of ten VOC Train Wrecks I’ll explain in coming weeks. At the end of a series I’ll provide a scorecard of all of them, and I hope that it will be a helpful reminder of how to recognize and avoid these pitfalls, and to assess your own VOC efforts.
It’s the holiday season, when our thoughts intensify on friends and family. Most of us have had a favorite aunt or uncle that we’ve gone to for sage advice. Maybe we prefer them to our parents because they seem more objective and confidential, they listen well, are positive and patient, they’re a safe harbor, or they know how to say the right thing at the right time. In my life these folks have been indispensible and have helped shape who I am. In business I can think of a few key people that have helped me in similar ways, and to no one’s surprise they wouldn’t be found on the organization charts.
As we leaders turn to our business family, we look for the same characteristics as with that trusted uncle or aunt. And just like our personal family, people in our immediate “work family” usually aren’t right for the role. What we often need – but don’t have – is someone that can understand our situation and provide some solid impartial advice.
Consultants and business advisors can fill this role once they gain a leader’s trust. Ram Charan is one of these people and has proven to be indispensible to the leaders of P&G, Verizon, and Honeywell, to name a few. We at Northpoint fill this role for our clients, and while we have the capability and experience to deploy game-changing techniques, it’s often our role as a trusted advisor that’s most valued.
Dick Van Belzen
 What’s the strength of your Brand? Many leaders have fixated on this topic over the past several years as it’s become popular. Brands like Nike, Starbucks, Coca Cola, Marriott, UPS, Apple, Harvard, Intel, and Google are part of our personal and business culture. We all would love to have a brand name that resonates with their level of awareness and consideration.
What if our firm doesn’t make consumer products? Does that make a difference? My quick answer is “Yes.” In Business-to-Business (B2B) a company may have fewer than ten customers, or maybe hundreds or even thousands, but never millions like the B2C folks.
So am I suggesting you drop Branding from your approach and move on to other things that are more valuable? No. But I’m asking you to think differently about how to “March-in the Brand.” The key to the change is the delivery vehicle and how it’s built in B2B with its smaller customer communities. While we live in a real-time culture where changes and impacts are expected overnight, the development of strong and sustained brand in B2B does take some time.
Here’s an outline of some components of B2B branding:
- Customer-facing channel representatives. When I say “marching in the brand” I’m talking about the #1 impact group in affecting your brand, for better or worse: your customer contact representatives. How prepared are they? How committed and supportive of your products and services? How do they interact, dress, and present? (As an aside, dress is generally sloppy these days, so it wouldn’t take a lot to upgrade. I’m not saying you have to go to uniforms or Italian suits, but some nice pressed dress slacks would be a good start.) Are your representatives heavy handed and high pressure? Are they focused, good listeners, informed, shy from disparaging other alternatives? There are other questions you and your team can develop, but you get the point.
- Supporting the Channels. How do your customer representatives receive support? How responsive are you to them? Are channel partners treated as external customers by support? Do your representatives feel pumped-up after contact with others in your company? If your representatives (direct or indirect) are feeling well supported and listened to, how do you think they will interact on your behalf? What impact will this have on developing your brand?
- Social media. This is a critical area as many influencers and decision makers rely on social media posts for information. We’re learning that younger buyers/decision makers don’t necessarily have the same brand loyalty of other generations. So if these buyers are a target community, how are you dealing with it? How are you using social media to better connect with a new generation of decision makers? Segmenting, targeting, and positioning (STP) can fit right in to a better focus on social media. Effective use of social media has less to do with investment and more to do with putting in a creative, disciplined approach to the communities you target.
- Customer intimacy. This is often thought of during the sales process, but often neglected after the sale closes. After the sale is complete, are your channel representatives providing support? Does support move to impersonal vehicles like web-based self-service, email, or a toll-free hotline? Do your customer service and technical support representatives have good communications skills? Do you know how your customers and targets would like to be serviced and what premiums they would pay for more personal service?
- Customer correspondence. This includes proposals, sell sheets, and presentations, and even less formal communications like email. Is the look consistent? Are the branding elements managed or controlled (e.g. email signatures)? Do they convey the image you’re trying to deliver? How do you know about this if you’re not in on each sale call?
- Terms and conditions. Are you easy to do business with? We’ve all done business that is complex but is well organized, understandable, and positive, even if it means parting with a fair amount of cash. I’m not saying to throw out the legal department and have them replaced with creative writers from advertising. I suggest looking into your process to see how you can simplify it and yet have tight agreements that achieve your goals.
 These six areas are a good starting point and by no means an exhaustive list of where to improve your image and brand value. They provide a basis for thinking about how you can impact the brand through your people, as you all try to march in a new and improved band – one that has everyone playing on the same sheet of music, that’s well-coordinated, and well-choreographed.
My thoughts turn to the Rose Bowl parade on New Year’s Day, how wonderful the bands play, how crisp they look, how precisely they move. It’s so impressive seeing all the bands and floats pass by that it’s very easy to take for granted the effort that goes into these performances. It’s easy to take our customer touch points for granted as we move headlong into managing our various challenging global businesses. Marching in B2B has as much to do with customer relationships and effective contact points as with advertising and marketing.
Wishing you all the best as you march forward in 2010 and beyond.
Dick Van Belzen
 United Parcel Service had used this slogan for some time to show how responsive they can support your needs with effective and efficient processes. This is expressed regularly in commercials and their whiteboard website. As this successful commercial shows, questions are a good way to get us thinking. UPS has long been successful at delivering their promise with predicable and repeatable results which we’ve all come to rely upon. UPS shows with this slogan and the whiteboard campaign how the company can find ways to service the varying needs of its residential and business customers.
This past week, we learned that Scott Brown had won election in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s long held U.S. Senate seat. The chances of this were unthinkable several weeks ago, with Brown’s opponent having a large double digit lead.
So what can Scott “BROWN” do for you? And what in the world happened, anyway?
This question is really about what we as citizens (and possibly in our business lives) can learn from this sea change event. Here are some personal takeaways :
- You can’t take for granted each vote (or customer) no matter how large your lead (or market share advantage).
- You can fall out of touch very quickly if you don’t have effective polling (or market sensing) in place. A lead was lost in a matter of days, with a candidate that seemed paralyzed on what to do to counter the underdog’s surge.
- How effective is your polling (market sensing)? Taking polls (and visiting customers) are all good things to do, but are you really getting OBJECTIVE, CLEAR and UNFETTERED input and not group think? Talking to customers doesn’t guarantee that you fully hear and interpret true needs. In running for the long shot senator position, Scott Brown developed the right message at the right time and took advantage of concerns towards which both parties seemed tone deaf.
- Never give up. This goes to those that are not in the lead – be watchful as events unfold and situations occur that can be leveraged. Getting a message that resonates goes a long way to winning. If you’re a market leader, don’t think for one minute that you can’t be overtaken; especially now as we move into a recovery and knowing that customers – like voters – have been affected by the past two years.
- The message is important. In 2010 the points that resonate are different. The majority of voters in Massachusetts were loyal to Senator Kennedy for decades. Times change, and going through the motions and taking the voters for granted is the kiss of death. Brown’s message was clear. It engaged and resonated with voters. It was fresh, delivered very well, and in the end it was embraced against tall odds.
There is a lot we can learn from this election, whether we’re a market leader or follower. You can control your fate if you’re first and foremost in touch with your customers or voters, listen effectively, and then provide a new or restated value proposition, like Brown did. We’re learning from research that that customers and decision makers have been deeply affected by the economy. Thinking that customers will “bounce back” to where they once were some time in 2007 or 2008 is ignoring the fact that times have truly changed. If you’ve significantly misread the situation, don’t be surprised if you’re knocked off your position.
Given all that was riding on this one senate seat election, for the state, the country, our President, key initiatives that were in the works, it’s all the more shocking. Certainly this political change was not about who had the most money and support. A wake up call, perhaps?
Scott Brown focused on his state, its voters, and what they were telling him. He seemed to have worked very hard, traveling many miles, and he effectively translated what he heard into some keen messages. He didn’t have a lot of super support from his party and their internal bias (probably to his advantage).
Executives are like politicians in that they’re immersed in their job and can miss subtle signs. As a leader you’re flanked by your senior team, supposedly armed with wise insights from your market analysts, trade associations, and board of directors. Martha Coakley had higher name recognition and seemed to be flanked by every advantage possible. But in the end she didn’t effectively connect with the people. For market upstarts/followers, you can learn that if you do the right things and don’t give up, you have a chance. If you’re a market leader, you can be too cautious, so for the next stage of growth you need to garner all the things that made your company what it is.
In B2B, we tend to spent very little on voice of the customer and even less when times are tough. We believe that our channels will provide feedback and figure how to overcome any gaps. And the “What Can Brown Do For You?” campaign from UPS is an example of a market leader looking for new ways to connect with its customers and build confidence.
What steps are you taking to learning about your customers? How do you know that these steps will be effective?
Dick Van Belzen
 Several years ago I first heard about the playbook in an NFL football context when Bill Walsh, the highly successful head coach of the San Francisco 49ers, spoke of it in an interview. The coach was asked why he had these large sheets of paper with him on the sidelines, which was rare as other successful coaches like Tom Landry of the Dallas Cowboys and Joe Gibbs of the Washington Redskins didn’t use them. Coach Walsh went on to explain that he boiled down his team’s “playbook” each week, based on the opponent, into a number of scenarios and options that he could call out on game day. He went on to say that in tight pressure-cooker games he often felt so frazzled that he really needed this game day playbook to help him pick the right plays, versus keeping everything up in his head and hoping he would select the right play at the right time. Plus he went on to say that this way he, his other coaches, and the quarterback could more easily be on the same page. Well, we all know about the success of Coach Walsh, Joe Montana, Jerry Rice, and a number of other players and coaches associated with the Super Bowl victories and success of their era.
Today, those large sheets are commonplace on virtually every sideline for college and NFL teams. Others have followed certainly because of the success of those 49ers, respect for the true brilliance and offensive genius of Bill Walsh, and the fact that it really made a lot of sense because it worked. The playbook and game day sheets helped win games for teams by allowing for better preparation; stronger strategy that plays to the team’s strengths and opponent’s weaknesses; and greatly improved decision making.
Around this time I was running a $200+ million channel for a large global corporation that was growing at 20+% a year. Yet I wondered if a playbook could help me, because we were essentially running the business day-to-day, albeit we did go through the strategic planning drill once a year. So my senior team developed a set of scenarios, both positive and negative, that we could face that year and beyond. Next we developed a number of responses we could take for each situation. At the time, we developed about 35 scenarios that helped us, which we later added to. Unlike the NFL, we only released our responses and actions to the sales team when we needed to deploy. These deployed actions were like plays signaled-in from the sidelines – plus we provided the sales and marketing leaders with “game day” options that were condensed down from our much larger playbook. And, of course, much of the playbook was vetted with finance and others on the channel leadership team.
On October 19, 1987, commonly referred to now as Black Monday, the Dow Jones fell by 508 points or some 23% and the largest single day crash of the market, even to this day. This event sent businesses into a shock and the demand for most goods and services dropped significantly. Shortly after this our finance team came around to ask us where we could make cuts to our expenses. THIS EVENT provided a great opportunity to use our playbook. The challenge was finding a play that could help us turn around the rapidly deteriorating business conditions. We settled on a key initiative that was called “Steal One” that we felt would fire-up the 700+ channel partners and their customers. “Steal One” was launched within 10 days of October 19th and not without some controversy: this response was viewed as very aggressive and a lot to get done in a short time. When the year was tallied, this channel finished up 16% and was the only one of 18 units in this large corporation to not experience decline. Interestingly, besides the sales climb, our profits also grew at about the same rate. So we finished a very scary year with resounding success. And in the end we conquered what has since been termed a “Black Swan“ event.
Fresh in all of our recent memories are situations that began to unfold after midyear 2008, and which we’re still trying to climb out of. So ask yourself: How you and your team could have been better prepared for this scenario and others that may occur on the horizon? There’s a lot we can do to gain control of events like these and provide the leadership our teams need. How many companies have something like a playbook where scenarios and various options are documented?
What we can learn from NFL teams like the 49ers and modern day successors, the New England Patriots and Indianapolis Colts? This is a whole new generation of successful coaches and players that have captured our interest, imagination, and excitement. Would these teams think of going into a year without a playbook?
As business advisors we’ve found that the playbook is useful for those clients that embrace it, and, quite frankly, we wonder why 100% of our clients wouldn’t have one, like in the case of the NFL. Along the way we have helped produce some amazing successes in the past year and worked dozens of playbooks.
The playbook helps avoid the scenario of being totally reactionary. I haven’t found one CEO or other leadership team member that likes cutting headcount and stretching out its payables, to name a few of the items that are normally swung into action. However, when a crisis comes about the CFO is usually asked to pull a rabbit out of his hat by slashing expenses. While some of this may be necessary, I offer to you the playbook that has revenue generation and market access improvement solutions to brace a fall – and possibly even lead to increased profits and market share. It’s commonly referred to as “turning lemons into lemonade.”
Here are some key points to think about concerning the playbook based upon my experience:
- Playbook vs. Strategic planning. The playbook is something separate from strategic planning, but should be called for in the process. The playbook is a book or document that contains a lot of scenarios and actions that can be deployed and implemented in short order, compared to strategic plans which help guide the business and reflect the megatrends, vision, and mission of an enterprise.
- Playbooks vs. Tactical plans. The playbook is used only in situations or business conditions that are unusual in nature and those that are largely unanticipated. In most cases the playbook is closely guarded by key members of the leadership team.
- Best time to develop a playbook. In the NFL most of the work on the playbook goes on in the “off season” which is typically the 1st and 2nd quarter of each year. It comprehends the thinking of lineup changes and new coaches and supports the personnel and direction of the team. My experience is that playbook work is a parallel and complimentary process to strategic planning and is best done in the 1st quarter of each fiscal year, with some rollover into the following quarter.
- Getting started. The first playbook is usually the toughest, but it can start out simply and move on from there. We have clients with playbooks that range from 20 pages to 100+ page multi-tabbed binders/electronic folders. We’ve learned that to be effective, the process needs solid facilitation and guidance, with a strong commitment by the CEO for its necessity.
Dick Van Belzen
 No, I haven’t been spending too much time in the medicine cabinet. Give me a minute and I’ll explain some interesting parallels between House and Fearless Growth and mental pictures of how some of the approaches – and I do mean some –can help our mindset and lead us to profitable revenue growth.
Most of you are familiar with the popular TV series and medical drama House, where a rogue doctor and team take on very challenging cases that – without their effective diagnosis and treatment – will result in the patient dying. This show had the highest viewing audience for its category in 2008 and has continued to pull strong ratings.
So what does House have to do with Fearless Growth? Well, quite frankly a lot! While I take issue with the lead character’s style in dealing with co-workers, patients, and others, his doggedness, determination, and general approach are appealing.
Here are some lessons for those of us charged with diagnosing problems and then quickly turning them around to drive growth:
- Diagnosis is huge. We can learn from House that getting to the bottom of it is very difficult and takes a balance of having the right team, vigilance, process, and willingness to test out a solution before blindly running with it.
- Treating symptoms vs. getting to the root cause. As I’ve stated before in this blog, misdiagnosis is 75% of the reasons why key initiatives fail.
- Benefits of interacting directly with the patient / market / problem / etc. While it’s easier on a couple of hospital floors to pull this off, in business direct engagement needs to be done. The best examples of this are in B2C with companies like P&G.
- Removing the blinders is easier said than done. The folks closest to the problem often find it the most difficult to step back and be objective. In House we see the interplay with hospital management and others (like family) who find it difficult to step back.
- Putting the right team together and focusing them on the task. Getting the right team is essential and having folks that aren’t afraid to voice contrary views. My view is that I accept contrarians as long as they supply constructive suggestions. Having a team that can focus and use a process is invaluable. In the TV show Dr. House uses a dry erase board to brainstorm ideas and get everyone on the same page. In business we have dozens of tools to help facilitate and process for results.
- Having the determination of a junk yard dog is sometimes necessary. While it’s not your company’s life at stake in each case, a lot is riding on what you deliver. And you don’t want to do your competitors too many favors. Someone once said success is 98% perspiration and 2% inspiration/intelligence.
Some key points of difference from House:
- High drama and attacks make for good TV but bad business. I believe that the undercurrent of your team’s attitudes to change will be similar to what is played out, if not managed effectively. Others don’t need to be put on the defensive by being attacked. This doesn’t lend well to garnering support. Many of us have heard of poor bedside manner in doctors, which seem to be tolerated. In contrast, these behaviors can kill a lot of business initiatives. Many leaders tend to overplay the sweet music of PowerPoint slides and style over substance. Many folks that never rise above middle management have great content but get killed on style points. Be careful not to shoot down good ideas on a personal or style basis.
- Making excuses and having too many sidebars is disruptive and affects the credibility an individual or the team.
- Dr. House is not a team player. Each of us of can relate to people, past or present, who create a lot of dust not worrying about who’s affected. This doesn’t work well at all in the corporate environment but seems to be tolerated in healthcare and with doctors (especially on TV).
House is a good show to use to get your point across and help others on the team to visualize what you want as a leader, with some obvious qualifications. It also injects some fun and comedy when facing tough challenges on an overloaded business agenda.
Let’s bring fearless growth out of the closet and talk it up. Yes, growth is often assumed and understood, but in the end it’s an exercise that most B2B firms file away with their finance groups. So if you’re in a health crisis, do you want Doogie Houser or House on the case?
|
|
